Disposed

Ch. Srinivasa. Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jul 2022WP/24527/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions filed by government employees seeking seniority and notional promotion. The court directed the respondents to consider specific representations regarding pending recommendations on promotion and seniority lists.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider specific representations on promotion and seniority within four weeks of the order without deciding on the merits of the case.

Ch. Srinivasa. Rao Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 23314 and 24527 of 2020

¶3

COMMON ORDER :

¶4

Writ Petition No.23314 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

¶6

“…..Issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that

¶7

(a) petitioner is entitled to be shown at Sl.No.34A of the Seniority List issued in Memo No AII(2)54/2017, dated 05.03.2019 as indicated in Memo No.AI1(2)1154/2005, dated 07.04.2019 as confirmed in Memo No AI1(1)1154/2019, dated 20.12.2019 of the 2^nd respondent.

¶8

(b) petitioner is entitled to be promoted on par with juniors (by giving notional date of promotion) to the cadres of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Deputy Director of Agriculture and Joint Director of Agriculture with all consequential benefits.

¶9

(c) The inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in taking prompt action even after the judgment of Honble High Court dated 30.04.2018 in W.P.No.34387 of 2012. It is therefore illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore violative of the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India

¶10

(d) and pass such other orders.”

¶11

Writ Petition No.24527 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the

¶12

Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

¶13

“…..Issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring

¶14

(a) petitioner is entitled to be shown at SI.No.30A of the Seniority List issued in Memo No.Estt.A7(1)22/2004, dated 15.03.2004 as indicated in Memo No.AII(1)1078/2018, dated 06.03.2019 as confirmed in Memo No.AI1(1)1078/2018 dated 30.12.2019 of the 2^nd respondent.

¶15

(b) petitioner is entitled to be promoted on par with juniors (by giving notional date of promotion) to the cadres of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Deputy Director of Agriculture and Joint Director of Agriculture with all consequential benefits.

¶16

¶17

(c) the inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in not taking prompt action even after the judgment of Hon’ble High Court dated 06.09.2018 in W.P.No.36489 of 2012 is therefore illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore, violative of the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

(d) and pass such other orders.”

¶19

Since the facts and issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, I find it expedient to decide both the matters by common order.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶21

Though the petitioners in both the writ petitions made several allegations against the respondents, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners, basing on the recommendations made by the by the Special Commissioner of Agriculture, Guntur vide Lr.No.A1(2) 20/2020, dated 21.10.2021; so also DDA and JDA during the panel years 2007-08 and 2014-15 for the petitioner in W.P.No.24527 of 2020 vide Letter No. A1(2) 25/2020, dated 27.10.2021, without touching the merits of the case.

¶22

Learned Government Pleader for Services-II placed on record the letter in W.P.No.23114 of 2020 vide Lr.No. A1(2) 20/2020, dated 21.10.2021, wherein the Special Commissioner of Agriculture, A.P, Guntur made recommendations to the Special Chief Secretary to Government (A & C) Agri-I, Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi for clarification, wherein it is mentioned as follows:

¶23

“ It is informed that, the seniority list in the cadre of Deputy Director of Agriculture was revised and the

¶24

¶25

name of Sri G. Ratna Prasad, DPD, I/o PD, ATMA, Chittoor District was fixed in the cadre of Deputy Director of Agriculture above the name of Sri U. Narasimha Rao, who was junior in the cadre of DDA during the panel year 2009-2010 i.e who was promoted as DDA w.e.f 26.11.2010.

¶26

So also learned Government Pleader for Services-II placed on record the letter in W.P.No.24527 of 2020 vide Lr.No. A1(2) 25/2020, dated 27.10.2021, wherein the Special Commissioner of Agriculture, A.P, Guntur made recommendations to the Special Chief Secretary to Government (A & C) Agri-I, Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi for clarification, wherein it is mentioned as follows:

¶27

“ Based on the above facts, review DPC was conducted for the year 2004-05 and notional promotion with retrospective effect in respect of Sri Ch. Srinivasa Rao, ADA, O/o ADA, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District as ADA was considered from the panel year 2003-04 i.e the appointment of Sri K.H.V.Livingston, ADA who is junior to him in the cadre of Agricultural Officer. Accordingly DPC members have approved the minutes vide reference 4^th cited”.

¶28

Therefore, it is made clear that the respondent authorities have recommended for notional promotion as stated supra, which was also forwarded to the Special Chief Secretary to Government for clarification, but the same is pending with the authorities.

¶29

In view of the submission of Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and Learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for respondents, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the writ petition.

¶30

¶31

This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh¹ , wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may be passed for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶32

In the result, both Writ Petition are disposed of by a common order, directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners, basing on the recommendations made by the Special Commissioner of Agriculture, Guntur, vide Lr.No.A1(2) 20/2020, dated 21.10.2021 in W.P.No.23314 of 2020; so also DDA and JDA during the panel years 2007-08 and 2014-15 for the petitioner in W.P.No.24527 of 2020 vide Letter No. A1(2) 25/2020, dated 27.10.2021 in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶33

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶34

___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

Date: 06.07.2022.

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶40

WRIT PETITION Nos. 23314 and 24527 of 2020

¶41

Date: 06.07.2022.

¶42

Ch. Srinivasa. Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Srinivasa. Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Sankar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri M Durga Nageshwara Prasad Vs State of Ap

Dammu Sudeer Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Ratna Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Madhusudhana Rao Vs State of Ap

P. Nagabushana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh